- Thread starter Rep Dom
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
divorce, what happens with property
All depends if you have a pre-nup
If you are getting married in the Dominican Republic, the separate property agreement must be prepared by a Dominican Notary BEFORE the marriage (that’s why it’s called a “prenuptial” agreement) and handed over to the Civil Registry Officer (“Oficial de Estado Civil”) at the marriage.
I am assuming that you’ll want the agreement to be enforceable in the Dominican Republic. If you don’t care about this but are only interested in its validity in your home country, then you’ll have to consult an attorney from home.
The prenuptial agreement is as simple or as complicated as the future spouses want it to be. A straight separation agreement is a very simple document. It will state in legal terms that whatever a spouse acquired before or during marriage will belong to him/her exclusively and that assets in a spouse’s name belong to that spouse exclusively.
If the spouses do not sign a prenuptial, their assets are governed by the community-property provisions of the Civil Code (Articles 1400 to 1496). Spouses are 50-50 owners of all matrimonial assets. These assets consist of the following:
1) All moveable properties (in essence, everything but real estate) belonging to either spouse at the time of the marriage or acquired by either of them during marriage, even by inheritance or gift unless the testator or donor has expressed otherwise.
2) All income from properties belonging exclusively for whatever reason to either spouse.
3) All immovable properties (real estate) acquired by either spouse during marriage.
To translate this into simple terms, without a “prenup,” whatever money, stocks, bonds, vehicles, credits, etc. (everything but real estate) you may have on the day of the marriage, is split 50-50 with your spouse when you say “yes, I do”. If your parents leave you $1,000,000 in their will and they do not expressly or implicitly state that this is for you alone, and not for your spouse, then your spouse will get 50%. (Fifteen years ago, I actually dealt with a case like this involving an American couple living in the DR).
You may ask why this is so. The answer is that we are, I believe, the only country in the world still governed by the original provisions of the Napoleonic Code, which dates from 1804, a time when wealth was almost exclusively “immovable”, i.e., real estate, and therefore it was not considered of importance that all “moveables” be part of the matrimonial community. In France, the code was amended a long time ago to include only properties acquired during marriage as community property.
Interesting...I thought a prenup wasn't really enforceable in The DR and that everything was split 50/50. What if it's in a "corporation"?
Yes ,,,that is correct and it also important to note that now the law pertaing to divorces states that a de facto marriage of more than 2 years and when there is a child has the same standing as marriage with the certificate ,If it is in a corporation then the share of wownership in that corporation is split 50 50% ,,
Also it is worthwhile noting that a non dominicans married elsewhere can not receive a divorce if one party is not in agreement with it
Shares ins a corporation are movable assets. Same applies, 50/50 if there is no prenup. It is called something different here but it has the same purpose.
Interesting...I thought a prenup wasn't really enforceable in The DR and that everything was split 50/50. What if it's in a "corporation"?
Real estate owned before marriage is not community property; therefore, upon a divorce, it will belong 100% to the spouse who owns it since before marriage.
On another matter, there is no new law that states that living together with somebody and having a child has the same standing as marriage with the certificate. The situation is still more or less the same as after the 2001 Supreme Court ruling when the following conditions were found to give a companion certain rights: a) the couple must have lived as if they were husband and wife, in a public relationship, not hidden or secret; b) the relationship must be stable and long-lasting; c) the relationship must be monogamous and non-adulterous since its origins ; and d) the couple should be of different sexes. The ruling never stated a definite time and went on to say expressly that "marriage and extra matrimonial companionship are not . . equivalent realities”.
On another matter, there is no new law that states that living together with somebody and having a child has the same standing as marriage with the certificate. The situation is still more or less the same as after the 2001 Supreme Court ruling when the following conditions were found to give a companion certain rights: a) the couple must have lived as if they were husband and wife, in a public relationship, not hidden or secret; b) the relationship must be stable and long-lasting; c) the relationship must be monogamous and non-adulterous since its origins ; and d) the couple should be of different sexes. The ruling never stated a definite time and went on to say expressly that "marriage and extra matrimonial companionship are not . . equivalent realities”.